REPORT POLICIES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Transcription

1 National Centre for Social Research OBSERVATORY ON COMBATING DISCRIMINATION ATHENS, GREECE REPORT POLICIES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION Olga Angelopoulou Apostolos Xyrafis Panos Alexopoulos (Attorney at Law, L.LM. PhD) (Doctorant, UCL) (M.A., College of Europe) Athens, July 2011 Funded by European Commission "Establishment of Observatory on Combating Discrimination" PROGRESS

2 ABBREVIATIONS CSR EESC ESC/OKE KEK INE GSEE LGBT NCSR Corporate Social Responsibility European Economic and Social Council Economic and Social Council of Greece Vocational Training Centre of the Labour Institute of the Greek General Confederation of Labour Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender National Centre for Social Research Funded by European Commission "Establishment of Observatory on Combating Discrimination" PROGRESS

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I...5 The contribution of social dialogue to the combat against discrimination Survey s results...6 Tackling discrimination...6 Measures for vulnerable groups...12 Elderly workers...14 The social dialogue Focus group interviews...23 Athens (x 2)...23 Katerini...25 Chania...26 Thessaloniki Outcomes: an introduction to the current situation in Greece...28 Chapter II...30 Generally accepted measures and policy recommendations...30 FINAL CONCLUSIONS...34 BIBLIOGRAPHY...35 ΑΝΝΕΧ I...37 Introduction...42 Definitions...43 Instructions to fill out this questionnaire...44 Chapter I: Tackling discrimination...45 Chapter II: Measures for the vulnerable groups...49 A) People with a disability...49 B) Age...49 C) Family life...50 D) Immigrants/People belonging to a minority group...51 Chapter III: Elderly workers...52 Chapter IV: The social dialogue...54 Contact information...59 INTRODUCTION This research Report has been written for the purposes of the project entitled Establishment of an Observatory on Combating Discrimination [in Greece]. This project, launched in December 2010 and lasting one year, is being implemented under Funded by European Commission "Establishment of Observatory on Combating Discrimination" PROGRESS

4 PROGRESS 1, the EU s employment and social solidarity programme, and aims at improving enforcement of legislation and policies against discrimination in Greece. Among the project promoters are its coordinator, the National Centre for Social Research (NCSR), the Economic and Social Council of Greece (OKE/ESC), the Vocational Training Centre of the Labour Institute of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (KEK INE GSEE) and Efxini Poli (network of local authorities). The Report is addressing a task recently assigned and taken up by social partners, namely that of combating discrimination and promoting equal opportunities in the field of employment. This task is clearly connected to the European and national law on the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religious or other beliefs, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender as well as on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin. The specific importance of this Report s content bears on the fact that: a) the OKE is the responsible institution provided for by the Greek Constitution to conduct social dialogue through the formulation of Opinions and own-initiatives. The OKE s members are divided into 3 Groups: Group I representing the Employers, Group II representing the Employees and Group III representing the Various Interests (farmers, self-employed persons, lawyers, doctors, members of the Technical, Economic and Geotechnical Chamber of Greece, consumers, gender equality, disabled people, environment protection, municipalities and prefectures). The OKE s Opinions cover a broad variety of topics, ranging from economic, energy and environment to education, health care, immigration and social services issues, b) regarding the discrimination issue, the OKE publishes since 2005 an Annual Report on the application of the principle of equal treatment regardless of racial or ethnic origin, religious or other beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation (hereafter referred to as the Annual Report). When preparing this Report, the OKE values the input of more than 40 civil society s organisations and various NGOs concerned with discrimination-related issues, c) the employment field is one of the main fields were discrimination is prohibited. Social partners, as natural regulators of the workplace are involved thereto in many manners (a) equal treatment becomes an issue of collective bargaining, a matter of agreement between employers and employees as a part of the work contract, (b) social partners at a higher level (European national) obtain the task to communicate the 1 4

5 new obligations and rights to their members or social partners at a lower level, (c) equal treatment is a topic of action towards the national and European authorities. Moreover (d) the institutionalised social dialogue embraces the combat against discrimination and strives for continued progress in the matter. This Report is divided into two (2) main chapters. The first one introduces the findings and conclusions that have been drawn up from the field work that the OKE has carried out during six consecutive months within the framework of the project. More specifically, this field work included a questionnaire on the fight against discrimination 2 that the OKE developed in January 2011 and which was sent to different social partners organisations OKE members or not with the aim to gather their own experience and their suggestions on this specific issue. The views and suggestions collected via the questionnaire were then deepened through an interview/discussion phase with representatives from local professional and social organisations in Greece. The second chapter contains concrete policy recommendations to be implemented in order to better combat discrimination. These recommendations are inspired, on the one hand, by the social partners proposals as those have been expressed through the OKE s field work, described in chapter one of this Report and, on the other hand, by the Annual Reports, relevant Opinions and other initiatives undertaken by the OKE. CHAPTER I The contribution of social dialogue to the combat against discrimination This first chapter introduces the common views of social partners and of civil society s organisations participating to the OKE but not only regarding the combat against discrimination in Greece. As already mentioned, those opinions and recommendations were gathered following a two-stage procedure. The first step consisted in sending a questionnaire on the fight against discrimination to social partners organisations. The questionnaire was divided into four (4) chapters, namely 2 See Annex I 5

6 (a) tackling discrimination, (b) measures for vulnerable groups, (c) elderly workers and (d) the social dialogue and it included both quantitative as well as qualitative questions. In total, the OKE received 27 filled out questionnaires; 5 coming from Group I ( Employers ), 10 from Group II ( Employees ), 7 from Group III ( Various Interests ) and 5 coming from the participants to the focus group interview that took place in the city of Katerini (see below). The second step was the organisation of focus group interviews in various cities in Greece, namely in Athens, Katerini, Chania and Thessaloniki. The procedure consisted in asking specific questions to the participants and, after a first round, they were invited to discuss and interact with each other. The aim of those focus group interviews was twofold: firstly, to explore and to better understand the discrimination phenomenon through a face-toface dialogue and, secondly, to obtain the opinion of representatives of local social partner s organisations in order to approach the issue on a local level as well. The present chapter is divided into two (2) sections; the first section portrays the responses obtained to each of the 44 questions posed within the questionnaire. The number of responses coming from the various 4 groups Groups (Group I, Group II, Group III and Katerini) is mentioned, as well as the percentage that this number represents compared with the total number of responses received. This description allows the identification of the agreements and disagreements between the Groups. It is additionally presented how the social partners representatives justified their answer when they were asked to do so. The second section is devoted to the common views between all the cities where a focus group interview was conducted and to the opinions expressed in every one of the four cities. Finally, the main outcomes resulting from this social dialogue are shown at the end of this chapter. 1. Survey s results Tackling discrimination 1 st question: How would you assess the existing institutional framework in Greece regarding the fight against discrimination? The answers given to this question are not unanimous. Out of a total of 27 responses, 12 (44%) consider that we have an adequate institutional framework in Greece, 13 6

7 (48%) an inadequate one, while in 2 cases, the respondents did not answer the question. It is interesting to notice the discrepancy between the Groups. As a matter of fact, a slight majority of respondents from Group I (3 out of 5), Group III (4 out of 7) and from Katerini (3 out of 5) answered adequate. Conversely, a significant number of respondents (7 out of 10) from Group II answered inadequate. Regarding the shortcomings in the institutional framework, they mentioned that: a) it is not implemented properly and the monitoring mechanisms are missing. The lack of political willingness as well as the omissions and weaknesses in the legal system are obstacles in its overall improvement, b) it is not clear and it has not been transmitted to the society. Problems are also identified in the education and sensitisation on equal treatment questions, c) in order to face the problem of discrimination in an effective manner, you need a regulated and smoothly evolving labour market, which is not the case in Greece. Existing regulations to tackle discrimination at work are mainly characterised by a punitive judicial intervention. Neither financial and administrative assessment nor reinforcement of the competent bodies is provided for the development of preventive actions. Apart from some examples, e.g. the Ombudsman, measures and actions, which have so far been adopted, are limited and still in an embryonic form, d) there are deficiencies concerning the question of harmonisation between private and professional life and the question of the protection of immigrants, asylumseekers and refugees. For the enhancement of the institutional framework, the suggestions made concern the removal of the existing shortcomings (e.g. better and more effective implementation of the current provisions, the creation of monitoring mechanisms, the analysis and the implementation of recommendations formulated by international organisations and NGOs, more political and legislative implication, a change in the mentalities, the transfer, through a substantive social dialogue, of good practices from other European countries). What is more, a respondent belonging to Group I recommended to update the meaning of discrimination, without however giving more details. Finally, it is necessary to reach a certain satisfactory level of awareness and sensitisation along with the development of a concrete national strategy for the fight against all kinds of discrimination. 7

8 2 nd question: How would you assess the interest shown by your entity/organisation as regards the fight against discrimination? The answers are quite divergent but a clear majority of respondents has either checked the box particularly strong (9 33%) or strong (11 41%). 6 (22%) answered small and 2 respondents did not answer the question. More analytically, in Group I, 2 respondents answered strong, 2 small and 1 particularly strong. In Group II, 5 respondents answered particularly strong, 2 strong and 2 small ; in Group III, 4 respondents answered strong, 2 particularly strong and 1 small and, finally, in Katerini, 3 respondents answered strong, 1 particularly strong and 1 small. 3 rd question: Do you think that your entity/organisation can reap benefits of the fight against discrimination? The vast majority (21 78%) answered positively whereas 3 (11%) (1 from Group I and 2 from Katerini) negatively and 3 did not answer the question. The respondent from Group I who answered negatively argued that, in the current (economic) context, the fight against discrimination constitutes a luxury. On the other hand, the positive answers refered to: a) the sense of justice that contributes to the work balance and development, the improvement of productivity and cooperation, b) the reinforcement of the social cohesion and the assurance of social order, c) the strengthening of trade unions, d) the employment of people belonging to vulnerable groups reinforces the support to the primary sector, e) within the context of the corporate social responsibility, the contribution to the improvement of the corporate profile and the reinforcement of the sense of security enjoyed by all the workers. 4 th question: What kind of actions/activities to combat discrimination have been carried out by your entity/organisation? The following actions/activities were mentioned (3 respondents did not answer the question): a) adoption of a specific action plan: 4 answers (2 from Group I, 1 from Group II and 1 from Group III), 8

9 b) information and training sessions intended to staff: 9 answers (2 from Group I, 6 from Group II and 1 from Group III), c) continuous monitoring (i.e. through the collection of statistical data) of the diversity level among the employees in the entity/organisation: 4 answers (1 from Group I, 2 from Group II and 1 from Katerini), d) collaboration with other entities/organisations for the implementation of programmes aimed at combating discrimination: 14 answers (1 from Group I, 6 from Group II, 6 from Group III and 1 from Katerini), e) participation in international networks for the exchange of information and knowhow on the fight against discrimination: 8 answers (1 from Group I, 3 from Group II, 3 from Group III and 1 from Katerini), f) provision of support services to people belonging to vulnerable groups: 15 answers (4 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 2 from Katerini), Finally, a respondent from Katerini answered that his entity/organisation provides for nursing home. 5 th question: Are all the members/employees aware of the involvement of your entity/organisation in the fight against discrimination? The number of negative answers is clearly higher than the number of positive ones. More specifically, 16 (59%) respondents answered no, 9 (33%) answered yes and 2 respondents did not answer the question. In Groups I (3 no and 2 yes ) and III (4 no and 3 yes ) the difference is marginal. On the other hand, in Group II, the discrepancy is more important (7 no and 2 yes ). Finally, in Katerini there is a balance between no and yes (2 answers for each one). 6 th question: How do you communicate the results/impact of your involvement? Group I through: press releases, publication of data on the organisation s website, information sessions, the results are included in the organisation s social report. Group II does so via: actions aimed to sensitise and to raise awareness, press releases, press conferences, (oral) statements in plenary sessions. Group III through/in: the organisation s website, the monthly magazine, seminars, leaflets, press releases, the participation in European fora and programmes. Katerini mentioned: press releases, annual report, implementation of specific activities. 9

10 7 th question: Does your entity/organisation employ people belonging to vulnerable groups? Out of 27 answers, 20 (74%) answered positively, 5 (19%) negatively and 2 respondents did not answer the question. The common points in the four groups are: a) the relatively high level, on average, of employment of elderly workers 3 and women, b) the relatively low percentage, on average, of young workers 4, workers with a disability and immigrants, and c) the fact that no one of the four groups employ people belonging to a minority group. More analytically: Entities/organisations from Group I mainly employ elderly workers, with percentages ranging from 5% to 40% and women, from 30% to 70%. Conversely, they almost do not employ immigrants, about 2%. Finally, they work, on average, with around 8% of young workers and workers with a disability. In Group II, respondents declared that they essentially work with elderly people, around 55%, and women, percentages ranging from 15% to 60%. They employ a very low percentage of workers with a disability, 0,4%. Finally, for what concerns immigrants and young workers, the percentage is also low with 4,8% and 7% respectively. The same situation applies in Group III with a percentage of elderly workers and women fluctuating from 3% to 50% and from 30% to 100% respectively. The percentage for immigrants goes from 2% to 20%. Young workers and workers with a disability form a percentage, on average, of about 5%. Finally, in Katerini, local entities/organisations employ, on average, 33% of elderly workers and 65% of women. They also have 10% of people with a disability and 4% of young workers. 8 th question: Which position do workers belonging to vulnerable groups hold in your entity/organisation? Apart from one respondent who did not answer the question, the other respondents gave the following information: In Group I, they work as office staff, accountant, researcher, receptionist or in the sales department. 3 In this questionnaire, elderly workers are workers aged In this questionnaire, young workers are workers aged between 18 and

11 In Group II, people with disabilities are employed as telephone operator and concierge, in the cleaning sector or as administrative staff. In Group III, workers belonging to vulnerable groups hold a position in the cleaning sector, in the agricultural sector and in all the administrative services. In Katerini, they work as office staff and in the finance department. 9 th question: Do workers belonging to vulnerable groups hold a senior position in the hierarchy of your entity/organisation? Most responses are positives (13 65% yes and 6 30% no ) while 1 respondent did not answer the question. There is 1 negative answer in Group I and Katerini, 2 negative answers in Group II and III. 10 th question: Has your entity/organisation set specific quantitative targets for the employment of workers belonging to vulnerable groups? Most responses are, in this case, negative (19 70% no and 4 15% yes ) while 4 respondents did not answer the question. One positive answer came from Group I and 3 from Group II with the respondents specifying that those targets refer to people with disabilities, young and elderly workers and women. 11 th question: What do you think should be avoided during the recruitment process in order to prevent any sort of discrimination? A common reference in all Groups was that all kinds of standardised approaches should be avoided. On the contrary, emphasis should be given to qualitative and specialised evaluation criteria as for instance skills, qualifications and work tasks. Furthermore, Group I pointed out that any personal feeling and bias must be banished from the recruitment process and Group III that people with political views contrary to the principle of equal treatment should not take part in the selection committees and, finally, that criteria like the candidates age or ethnic origin should not be taken into account. 12 th question: Is there any difference in the salaries according to whether or not an employee belongs to a vulnerable group? 23 (85%) out of 27 answers were negative, 2 (7%) were positive and 2 respondents did not answer the question. One positive answer was given by Group I and one by 11

12 Group II whose respondent justified the existence of this difference for economic reasons. Measures for vulnerable groups People with a disability 13 th question: Has your entity/organisation invested in infrastructures to improve the working environment for workers with a disability? A clear majority of respondents answered yes, namely 14 (52%), while 10 (37%) answered no and 3 respondents did not answer the question. In Group I, 3 respondents said yes and gave as examples of infrastructures equipped toilets, ramps and lifts as well as an occupational physician. The 2 negative answers were justified by the impossibility to make any intervention in the building because of a listed building and by the fact that the entity/organisation is not employing, for the moment, any worker with a disability. Group II gave the same kind of answers than Group I whereas the 3 respondents who answered negatively did not explain the reason. Like Group I and II, Group III and Katerini have made the same investments in infrastructures. The 3 respondents from Group III and 1 of the 2 respondents from Katerini who answered no explained that their entity/organisation has not currently any worker with a disability. 14 th question: Are you aware if a worker with a disability, in your entity/company, has ever been a victim of a jeer? Most of the respondents, 19 (70%), answered no to this question. 3 (11%) answered yes and 5 respondents did not answer the question. There was one (1) positive answer in Group II, in Group III and in Katerini. Age 15 th question: Are you aware if an elderly worker (+45), in your entity/company, has ever been a victim of a jeer? 12

13 Almost all the respondents, 24 (89%), answered no to this question. 1 (4%) respondent from Group I answered yes and 2 respondents did not answer the question. 16 th question: Does your entity/organisation hire young people without previous work experience? The positive answers in the four Groups are significantly higher than the negative ones. 22 (81%) respondents checked the answer yes, 4 (15%) no and 1 respondent from Group II did not answer the question. More specifically, from Group I, all the 5 respondents answered yes. From Group II, 7 said yes and 2 no explaining that their entity/organisation is a Public Entity or that they have so far never hired young workers. From Group III, 6 positive answers and 1 negative with the justification that recruitments of workers are done through the Supreme Council for Civil Personnel Selection (ASEP). Finally, from Katerini, 4 positive answers and 1 negative. The latter is due to the nature of the job and to the regulatory framework which require a previous work experience. Family life 17 th question: Does your entity/organisation support a flexible work time planning for parents with children? Like the previous questions, there is a considerable discrepancy between the positive and the negative answers. 24 (89%) answered yes, 1 (4%) respondent from Group II answered no due to costs and 2 respondents from Group II did not answer the question. 18 th question: Does your entity/organisation encourage the use, by male workers, of the parental leave right? A vast majority, 18 (67%), of the respondents declared yes while 4 respondents said no and 5 did not answer the question. 2 negative answers can be found in Group I because, as they explained, no male worker has so far asked to use his parental leave right. 2 negative answers can also be found in Katerini for the reason that as they explained this right is generally granted only to women. 13

14 Immigrants/People belonging to a minority group 19 th question: Does your entity/organisation employ immigrants? The general answer to this question was negative. 17 (63%) answered no mainly from Group II, III and Katerini. 8 (30%) said yes and 2 respondents did not answer the question. In Group I, there is a balance 2 positive and 2 negative answers. In Group II, 6 respondents answered negatively and 3 positively. In Group III, 5 no and 2 yes and in Katerini 4 no and 1 yes (this only positive answer does not seem to agree with the answer in the question n 7, where nobody from Katerini gave a percentage of immigrant workers). As far as the immigrants nationality/country of origin is concerned, they essentially come from South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. More specifically, Group I mentioned Bulgaria, Georgia and Russia; Group II Albania, Poland, Bulgaria, Egypt and countries from Asia and Africa; Group III mentioned Albania, Ukraine and Bulgaria and finally Katerini said Albania and Bulgaria. 20 th question: Are you aware if an immigrant worker, in your entity/organisation, has ever been a victim of a jeer? 21 (78%) out of 27 respondents answered no with only 2 (7%) respondents (1 from Group II and 1 from Katerini) being aware of a jeer case. 4 respondents did not answer the question. 21 st question: Does your entity/organisation pursue a diversity policy? A slight majority of the 27 respondents, namely 14 (52%), answered no. Comparatively, the positive answers are relatively low, 7 (26%), and the 6 respondents who did not answer the question represent a relatively high figure. One positive answer was given from Group I and 3 from Group II and Group III respectively. In Katerini, nobody answered positively. Elderly workers 14

15 22 nd question: How does the employment of elderly workers (+45) affect your entity/organisation s performance? The vast majority of respondents from Group I, II, III answered positively to this question. In total, 20 respondents (74%) said positively, 7 (26%) neutrally and nobody from the 4 Groups answered negatively. In Group I, 4 respondents checked the answer positively and 1 respondent the answer neutrally. In Group II, 7 said positively and 3 neutraly. In Group III, all the 7 respondents answered positively. Finally, in Katerini, 2 said positively and 3 neutrally. To justify the positive impact of elderly workers on their entity/organisation s performance, the respondents gave the following explanations: a) entities/organisations can leverage elderly workers knowledge, experience, serenity and maturity. b) elderly workers are more responsible, they better communicate and manage their time, c) respondents pointed out the importance and the necessity to combine the younger workers performance with all the aforementioned elderly workers skills. In that context, a respondent from Katerini referred to the mentoring function as a useful tool in enhancing organisation s performance. 23 rd question: Taking advantage of «older» workers experience is a practice that you consider: 26 (96%) out of 27 respondents consider this practice as being either very important (15 responses 55%) or important (11 responses 41%). One respondent (4%) from Group II answered neutral. The majority of respondents from Group I (3 out of 5) and all in Katerini see this practice as very important. On the other hand, a slight majority of the respondents from Group II and Group III answered important. 24 th question: Have mechanisms/tools for knowledge transfer been provided for in your entity/organisation? Approximately all the respondents (23 85%) said yes while 2 (7%) said no (one from Group II and one from Group III) and 2 respondents from Group II did not answer the question. 15

16 25 th question: How do you assess the older employees working in your entity/organisation? The answers given to this question are equally shared out between those who assess older workers as being productive (13 answers 48%) and those who consider them as being the same productive as the others (14 answers 52%). In Group I and in Katerini most of the respondents answered productive. Conversely, in Group II and Group III, the majority of the respondents said the same productive as the others. 26 th question: The mentality in Greece regarding the employment of people over 45 is according to you: Like the previous question, the answers are more or less uniformly divided into the three options. 8 (30%) respondents think that the mentality is positive and negative respectively. 11 (40%) respondents answered neutral. Apart from one respondent in Group I who checked the answer negative and one respondent in Katerini who said positive, the other answers in all Groups are evenly divided between the three options. 27 th question: Are you aware of any institutional measure, incentive or legislation which can help a company in retaining the employment of workers over 45? The positive answers (14 52%) were higher than the negative ones (12 44%). There was one respondent from Group II who did not answer the question. In Group I and Katerini, 3 out of 5 respondents respectively answered no. On the other hand, the majority of the respondents from Group II and Group III are aware of some concrete measures. When asked what are those measures, they referred to: a) (only respondents from Group I) some specific articles of the existing European and national regulatory framework and more specifically to Directive 2000/43/EC and Directive 2000/78/EC at EU level and to Law 3304/2005, Law 3061/2002, Law 3520/2004, Law 1892/90 and Law 2639/98 at national (Greece) level, b) some specific programmes and incentives from the Ministry of Employment and the Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED), e.g. incentives for hiring longterm unemployed aged 50+, possibility for employers to receive a grant from the 16

17 Manpower Employment Organisation on the basis of employment and selfemployment programmes for unemployed people (those programmes being financed by European and national resources). However, a respondent from Group II emphasised the fact that many of those incentives and measures are sketchy because they are taken within and because of a given context, e.g. crisis in a specific sector. c) a respondent from Group II explained that in many cases elderly workers retire because of the pension system, of the workforce management policy and because of changes regarding the organisation of work. Active policies to promote employment of older workers are not part of an independent design but they are included in all those policies aimed at promoting the employment and the reintegration of unemployed people into the labour market. 28 th question: How, do you think, can a company be sensitised on the necessity to retain the employment of elderly workers? All respondents from the 4 Groups pointed out the importance to provide for incentives (institutional, tax, economic) and to take advantage of and to transmit elderly workers experience. In Group I, they also mentioned the usefulness of the continuous vocational training and the necessity for elderly workers to become familiar with new means and methods of production and with the new technologies. In Group II, respondents referred to the necessity to better inform and sensitise employers in an effort to change mentalities and to avoid stereotypes. 29 th question: What do you think are the factors that impact negatively on the elderly workers job retention? To this question, respondents mainly answered adaptation to the new technologies (16 answers 3 from Group I, 4 from Group II, 5 from Group III and 4 from Katerini) and the lack of flexibility (11 answers 3 from Group I, 2 from Group II, 2 from Group III and 4 from Katerini). In addition, some respondents said the difficult access to knowledge (4 answers 1 from Group I, 2 from Group II and 1 from Katerini) while 1 respondent from Group II did not answer the question. Finally, 8 respondents (from Group I, Group II and from Katerini) gave another explanation and notably the high wage and insurance cost. 17

18 30 th question: In the design of your entity/organisation s future strategy, elderly workers are considered as: The same number of respondents (12 44%) answered an important factor and neutral. The explanations given were essentially the experience that elderly workers can bring to the future strategy (Group I) and the fact that assessment is not made on the ground of the age but rather on the ground of performance at work beyond any age criterion (Group III). One respondent from Katerini said a negative factor, arguing that the wage cost for elderly workers is comparatively higher than what they actually offer at work. 2 respondents from Group II did not answer the question. More analytically, in Group I and Group II, the majority said neutral whereas in Group III and Katerini most of the respondents answered an important factor. The social dialogue 31 st question: Did your entity/organisation participate in any action/activity that took place in 2007 during the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All? A slight majority of the respondents (12 44%) answered yes. 10 respondents (37%) answered no and 5 did not answer the question. Representatives from Group I, who all answered yes to the question, mainly mentioned the participation of their entity/organisation to the EQUAL Community Initiative programme. In Group II, 3 respondents answered positively with one of them explaining that its entity/organisation organised in 2007 a 3-days conference focusing on the immigration issue in order, on the one hand, to raise awareness and to introduce some good practices to deal with this question and, on the other hand, to trigger a dialogue between all parties involved in this issue. From Group III, 4 respondents said yes with one of them mentioning that its entity/organisation supported the positions adopted by the European organisations and bodies representing the local governments interests (Committee of the Regions, Council of European Municipalities and Regions). 18

19 32 nd question: Do you agree with all the provisions in the new Proposal for a Council directive of 2 July 2008 (COM/2008/426)? All the respondents who answered the question said yes (21 78%). 6 respondents did not answer the question. 33 rd question: To what extent do you consider that, in the past few years, the State has promoted the social dialogue on the discrimination issue? Nobody from the 4 Groups answered intensively. On the opposite, 16 respondents (59%), meaning the majority from Group I, Group III and Katerini, answered satisfactory and 11 (41%) said insufficient. From Group II, the same number of respondents (5) answered satisfactory and insufficient. Those who said insufficient argued that: a) the dissemination of information on the discrimination issue is not wide enough, b) the appropriate attention has so far not been paid to this issue and there is no concrete plan on how to implement the results coming from this dialogue. 34 th question: The ESC publishes an Annual Report on the application of the principle of equal treatment regardless of racial or ethnic origin, religious or other beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation. In that context, has you entity/organisation ever submitted proposals on how to improve the fight against discrimination? 9 (33%) out of 27 respondents answered positively and 13 (48%) negatively with 5 respondents not answering the question. Only in Group I, the majority of the respondents (4) said yes, explaining that their positions were already included in the OKE s Opinions. A respondent from Group II said that his entity/organisation upholds the development of a legitimised inclusive labour market and the promotion of employment as an ecumenical right. In that context, it has submitted a comprehensive set of general (refer to discrimination having similar and common characteristics and which can be fought in similar ways) and specific proposals (i.e. based on specific characteristics of different forms of discrimination). Finally, a respondent from Group III said that its entity/organisation agrees with the OKE s Reports. 19

20 35 th question: If your entity/organisation did submit proposals to the ESC, do you know if those proposals have been implemented? 6 respondents answered yes, 2 (one from Group I and one from Group II) no and 1 respondent did not answer the question. A respondent from Group II pointed out that OKE s proposals have difficulties to be implemented in the provinces, without giving further explanations. 36 th question: In which form do you consider that the social dialogue contributes particularly in the fight against discrimination? To this question, respondents mainly answered collaboration in supportive policies for vulnerable groups (19 answers 3 from Group I, 6 from Group II and Group III, 4 from Katerini). In second position, respondents checked the answer collaboration in information and raising awareness campaigns (18 answers 4 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 6 from Group III and 3 from Katerini). There were 16 answers in total for collaboration in policies aimed at eradicating discrimination in the labour market (16 answers 3 from Group I, 6 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 3 from Katerini). In addition, there were also 15 answers for scientific studies and researches (3 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 3 from Katerini) and 13 answers for a wider dialogue at national and European level regarding the question of equality and of equal opportunities (3 from Group I, 4 from Group II, 5 from Group III and 1 from Katerini). Finally, a respondent from Group II added that companies adopting policies aimed at combating discrimination should be awarded. 37 th question: How is the dialogue on the discrimination issue structured in your entity/organisation? Most of the respondents said exchange of opinions with the workers/members (17 answers 4 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 6 from Group III and 2 from Katerini). In second position, they answered exchange of opinions with trade unions (15 answers 3 from Group I, 7 from Group II, 3 from Group III and 2 from Katerini). Finally, there were 11 answers for organisation of a conference on the discrimination issue (2 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 3 from Group III and 1 from Katerini) and 2 answers for through questionnaires (1 from Group I and 1 from Group II). 20

21 38 th question: Are you aware of any activities and initiatives to combat discrimination conducted by trade unions in Greece? A small majority of respondents (14 52%) answered positively while 13 (48%) respondents said no, mostly from Group I and from Katerini. Respondents mentioned trade union organisations [however except one respondent without giving further details on initiatives and activities that were organised] like the General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE), the Labour Center of Athens, the Hellenic Federation of Bank Employees Unions (OTOE) and the Panhellenic Federation of Police Officers (POASY). 39 th question: Are you aware of any activities and initiatives to combat discrimination conducted by companies in Greece? A significant number of respondents (21 78%) said no whereas 5 (18%) answered yes and 1 respondent from Group III did not answered the question. A respondent from Group III referred to the protection of people with a disability and the activities carried out by the network of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). 40 th question: Are you aware of any activities and initiatives to combat discrimination conducted by entities/organisations from the civil society in Greece? Responses to this question are shared out between positive (12 44%) and negative (10 37%) ones with 5 respondents who did not answer the question. Like the two previous questions, respondents referred to some entities/organisations without however specifying activities and initiatives. They mentioned the Research Centre for Equality Issues (KETHI), the Labour Institute of the General Confederation of Greek Workers (INE/GSEE), the Greek Ombudsman, organisations representing people with disabilities, NGOs. A respondent from Group II pointed out that civil society organisations cooperate at national and European level towards the better protection of vulnerable groups rights. 41 st question: Are you aware of any activities and initiatives to combat discrimination conducted by international organisations? 21

22 The answers given to this question are almost equally divided between yes (12 answers 44%) and no (11 answers 41%) while 4 respondents did not answer the question. Respondents from Group I mentioned activities carried out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) like the ILO Vision on Gender Equality or the ILO Gender Audits, and by UNESCO like the Priority Gender Equality Action Plan for or the Gender Equality: Strategies that Work. From Group II they mentioned UNICEF [without specifying any concrete activity] and they noticed that international organisations are very active and involved in what concerns the discrimination issue, they contribute to improve the knowledge on this issue through numerous research programmes, they support civil society organisations and NGOs and they promote the exchange of good practices. Finally, respondents from Group III and from Katerini referred to the United Nations (UN), the Red Cross, the Council for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration (IMO). 42 nd question: Are you aware of any activities and initiatives to combat discrimination conducted by European institutions and bodies? The same number of respondents (12 44%) answered yes and no while 3 respondents did not answer the question. From Group I, they mentioned the Disability Strategy , the EU Journalist Award 2010 Together against discrimination or the EQUAL Community Initiative programme. From Group II, a respondent explained that the EU carries out information campaigns at EU-level in order to sensitise all parties concerned with the discrimination issue, it finances researches and cooperates with national governments, companies, trade unions and NGOs. Finally, from Group III, they referred to [without giving any details] the European Commission and to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). 43 rd question: The design and the implementation of policies to combat discrimination is a matter of: Almost all respondents (25 92%) agreed that is a matter of both employer and employees, arguing that the collaboration between both of them will guarantee the compliance with policies to combat discrimination. One respondent (4%) from Katerini answered that is exclusively a matter of the employer, without however explaining why, while one respondent from Group II did not answer the question. 22

23 44 th question: On which issues do you think it is necessary to further develop the social dialogue? Most of the respondents answered protection against dismissal (18 answers 1 from Group I, 9 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 4 from Katerini) and lifelong education and training (18 answers 4 from Group I, 7 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 3 from Katerini). There were in total 15 answers (2 from Group I, 5 from Group II, 5 from Group III and 3 from Katerini) for incentives for career and mobility and 13 responses (2 from Group I, 4 from Group II, 4 from Group III and 3 from Katerini) for salary equals productivity. In addition, flexible work times collected 11 answers (4 from Group I, 3 from Group II, 2 from Group III and 2 from Katerini) and work reorganisation gathered 6 responses (3 from Group II, 2 from Group III and 1 from Katerini). Finally, one respondent from Group II answered a permanent job with Euro-zone-level salaries and another respondent from the same Group stated to tackle the economic and financial crisis and to focus on wage cost and on competitiveness. 2. Focus group interviews As already mentioned, one (1) focus group interview was organised in four (4) different cities respectively in order to better understand social partner s points of view and to have a local perspective about the discrimination question. Respondents from the four focus groups were interested in learning more about the future Observatory on Combating Discrimination and some of them expressed their willingness to participate in the latter. Athens (x 2) The focus group interviews in Athens were held in spring 2011 in the OKE s premises with the participation of OKE s members. The latter mentioned that: concerning the discrimination issue in the labour market, in a sense, it is a real problem which cannot be solved due to an inadequate legal framework and to ineffective monitoring mechanisms. A 23

24 second respondent explained that this issue is partly a real problem and partly a theoretical one. He argued that some vulnerable groups, like the immigrants working in the agricultural sector, are at a disadvantage (e.g. unclear legal framework regarding their insurance when they are employed in various jobs) but also at an advantage (e.g. they receive high salaries) compared with Greek farmers. Another opinion that was expressed emphasised the fact that some vulnerable groups are more discriminated than others. More specifically, workers aged 50+ (access to new technologies), immigrants (insurance problems) and people with a disability (necessity to improve the institutional framework as regards their access to the labour market, particularly in the private sector) are the most vulnerable among all the vulnerable groups, the combat against discrimination has a positive impact on the economic and social progress because it guarantees social cohesion and social solidarity, vulnerable groups are very often victims of racist comments and stereotypes. Examples are the persistent remarks on a person s disability, stereotypes for immigrants according to their origin (the same comment was made in Katerini see below) or comments on the women s external appearance and their capacity to combine their professional life with their mother obligations, different opinions were expressed regarding professional organisations involvement in the fight against discrimination. One explained that those kinds of organisations try as much as they can to resolve discrimination issues. On the opposite, another opinion argued that their actions and activities are insufficient with the exception of elderly workers. A third opinion was that trade unions neither have a clear strategy for the combat against discrimination nor the required solidarity towards the vulnerable groups, finally, participants in Athens noticed that Greece may be in front in the fight against discrimination compared to other European 24

25 countries when one takes into consideration cases like, for instance, the increase of xenophobia in some Scandinavian countries. Katerini The focus group interview in the city of Katerini took place in March Representatives from different local professional organisations who answered the questions emphasised the following points: the combat against discrimination should not be a priority in the current context given the economic and financial crisis, as far as specific vulnerable groups are concerned, respondents pointed out that women are not the same productive and collaborative as men while they are more ambitious regarding their career. For the persons belonging to the LGBT group, they emphasised the difficulties for them to stay in Katerini which is a closed society. The same opinion was expressed in the city of Chania, where people added that most of the LGBT persons leave the city and move to Athens in order to find a job, principally in the artistic field (e.g. dj, barman/woman, etc). For people with a disability, respondents from Katerini mentioned that the overall situation has improved; there is a better sensitisation on problems that this vulnerable group faces on a daily basis. Elderly workers have fixed opinions and attitudes and they don t easily adapt themselves to the new technologies. They added that for a worker aged 55+ to lose his/her job is a catastrophe since an employer will prefer to hire for the same salary two young workers rather than one elderly worker only. Finally, on immigrants, respondents said that stereotypes have been developed according to their origin, organisations representing the employers, the employees or other professions don t do anything special in order to sensitise and to raise awareness among their members about discrimination issues. They mentioned that local chambers of commerce and trade 25

26 associations do take interest in discrimination-related issues without having however carried out important actions, to the question if, compared to other European countries, Greece is in the front or rather behind in the fight against discrimination, respondents from Katerini said that what really matters is where we stand in relation to the goals we have set and the problem is that, in Greece, clearly predefined long-term targets are missing in all fields of the society. Chania The focus group interview in the city of Chania took place in April Participants represented different social and professional organisations from Chania. The main comments of the discussion were: unlike what respondents said in Katerini, respondents in Chania stated that the combat against discrimination should always be a priority, regarding the vulnerable groups, they wondered if we could consider the drug addicts as people having a disability and hence as a vulnerable group. Furthermore, respondents stated that immigrants, elderly workers and women are currently those who are facing the stronger discriminations in Chania. Conversely, discrimination on the ground of religious belief is very rare in Chania, social services taking care of unfortunate people are also in a way discriminated in the sense that they are not considered as important as other public services, respondents emphasised that, in Greece, (discriminated) people are not aware of the law provisions, their rights and their obligations. In this context, it is necessary to create a bank of information on the discrimination issue, 26

27 tackling discrimination falls first and foremost under the State responsibility and therefore State support is essential when local social and professional organisations take actions and activities, the current economic crisis in Greece has led to changes in the labour market. Nowadays, for example, graduates are willing to work as street sweepers, a job that was done in the past essentially by foreign/immigrant workers. Moreover, poor people become very often victims of discrimination, finally, Greece was said to lag behind in the fight against discrimination especially when compared to countries like Switzerland. Thessaloniki The focus group interview in Thessaloniki followed an open debate with the title Fighting discrimination: The role of civil society organised in June 2011 by the OKE together with the Municipality of Thessaloniki and the NCSR. Below are some of the main comments expressed by the participants: apart from their concerns about (general) law enforcement in Greece, respondents mentioned the shortcomings in the judicial protection of the victims of discrimination. More specifically, they pointed out that judges are not enough familiarised with the relevant legislation and that court rulings take considerable time to be given, regarding the legal framework, it must be simplified and streamlined. Moreover, new kind of discrimination appear which therefore require new laws containing provisions such as the right to information and access, the current economic and financial crisis in Greece prevents an effective fight against discrimination. As far as specific vulnerable groups are concerned, women have experienced, in the recent past, an improvement in their working conditions, improvement which has been slowed down by the crisis (e.g. cases of pregnant women 27